THE CIRCUIT COURT’S JURISDICTION IN GHANAIAN LAND DISPUTES: A JURISDICTION AT LARGE. -

THE CIRCUIT COURT’S JURISDICTION IN GHANAIAN LAND DISPUTES: A JURISDICTION AT LARGE.

BY HER HONOUR JUDGE SEDINAM AWO KWADAM (Mrs.),

CIRCUIT COURT 2, ADENTAN-ACCRA,

18th March, 2024.

This paper delves into a persistent misconception surrounding the Circuit Court’s jurisdiction in land disputes within Ghana. A prevailing assumption among litigants and legal practitioners posits that the Circuit Court’s jurisdiction in land disputes is circumscribed by a GHC2,000,000.00 (Two Million Ghana Cedis) valuation cap on the disputed land. Through a meticulous examination of relevant Ghanaian statutory provisions, specifically Section 42(1)(a) of Act 459^[1] and Regulation 2 of L.I 2429^[2]; this paper challenges the widely held assumption. By providing a comprehensive legal analysis, the paper demonstrates unequivocally that the Circuit Court’s jurisdiction in land matters is, in fact, unlimited, irrespective of the value of the land. This paper aims to rectify the ongoing misinterpretation and misapplication of jurisdictional principles in land disputes in the Circuit Court, offering clarity and guidance to litigants, legal practitioners, and the judiciary.

INTRODUCTION

Land disputes have consistently occupied a substantial portion of the case load in Circuit Courts across Ghana. A recurring and contentious issue that has plagued the efficient resolution of these cases is the question of the jurisdictional limit imposed on the Circuit Court’s authority to adjudicate land disputes. Specifically, there exists a prevalent misconception that the Circuit Court’s jurisdiction is restrained by a monetary threshold of GHC2,000,000.00 (Two Million Ghana Cedis), such that land disputes exceeding this value fall outside its purview. This erroneous interpretation has engendered significant delays, unnecessary costs, and protracted litigation, thereby undermining the expeditious dispensation of justice^[3].

This paper seeks to exorcize the misconception through a rigorous examination of the relevant statutory provisions and a critical analysis of pertinent case law.

The central inquiry of this paper is whether or not the jurisdiction of the Circuit Court in land disputes is indeed constrained by a value cap of GHC2,000,000.00 (Two Million Ghana Cedis).

It is the contention of this paper that the Circuit Court’s jurisdiction in such matters is, in fact, unrestricted, at large, and that the prevailing misconception is devoid of legal foundation.

By elucidating the true scope of the Circuit Court’s jurisdiction in land disputes, this paper aims to contribute to the development of a more efficient and effective resolution of land disputes in Ghanaian Circuit Courts.

THE QUESTION OF JURISDICTION

A Recurring Jurisdictional Challenge

As a Circuit Court judge with over four years’ experience, I have frequently encountered jurisdictional challenges in land disputes. These disputes are often centered on the assertion that the value of the said land exceeds a GHC2,000,000.00 (Two Million Ghana Cedis) jurisdictional limit. Some counsel argue that this monetary cap comprehensively restricts the Circuit Court’s jurisdiction in land disputes.

Undoubtedly, parties retain the right, whether during the initial proceedings or even on Appeal, to raise the issue of jurisdiction for adjudication^[4]. A wealth of judicial precedents firmly establish that jurisdiction lies at the core of every dispute, profoundly impacting the ultimate validity of its outcome.

In consequence, when a party invokes the question of jurisdiction in a lawsuit, all other matters recede, and the resolution of this pivotal issue becomes the central focus through which the Judicial lens scrutinizes the suit^[5].

Focus of this paper

Now, to focus this paper, the jurisdictional inquiry will be confined to the specific question of whether or not the value of the disputed land determines the Circuit Court’s jurisdiction in land disputes.

A common procedural tactic in Circuit Court land disputes involves the defendant, upon receipt of the Writ of Summons and Statement of Claim, filing an Application on Notice seeking dismissal of the suit. This Application is often predicated on the defendant’s assertion that the value of the disputed land exceeds GHC2,000,000.00 (Two Million Ghana Cedis), thereby exceeding the purported jurisdictional limit of the Circuit Court. Essentially, the defence contends that the Circuit Court lacks jurisdiction over land disputes involving land valued above this threshold. The defence bases its Application on an interpretation of Section 42(1)(a) of Act 459, as amended by Regulation 2 of L.I 2429.

Counsel for the defence argue that a conjunctive reading of these provisions imposes a monetary cap of GHC2,000,000.00 (Two Million Ghana Cedis) on the Circuit Court’s jurisdiction, including actions pertaining to land ownership, possession, occupation, or title determination.

In essence, the recurring argument advanced by the defence is that the Circuit Court lacks jurisdiction to adjudicate the land dispute given that the value of the land surpasses the purported GHC2,000,000.00 (Two Million Ghana Cedis) threshold.

I firmly believe that many of my colleague Circuit Court Judges across Ghana can corroborate the frequent occurrence of jurisdictional challenges in land disputes, particularly those involving lands valued above GHC2,000,000.00 (Two Million Ghana Cedis).

This challenge has resulted in a demonstrable and unwarranted imposition of financial burden on litigants, waste of judicial resources, and a counterproductive diversion of legal expertise. Moreover, it has engendered a superfluous academic discourse and ultimately constitutes a moot point for legal practitioners.

The repetitive nature of this issue within our Circuit Courts has necessitated this paper.

My sincerest hope therefore is that this impartial and comprehensive analysis of the relevant legal provisions governing the Circuit Court’s jurisdiction in land matters will definitively resolve the jurisdictional question.

I respectfully submit that the existing legal framework is unambiguous and provides clear guidance on this issue.

THE RELEVANT LAW

Section 42(1)(a) of Act 459

Section 42(1)(a) of Act 459 reads; The civil jurisdiction of a Circuit Court consists of ;

(a) original jurisdiction in civil matters-

(i) in personal actions arising under contract or tort or for the recovery of any liquidated sum, where the amount claimed is not more than 100 million;

(i) in actions between landlord and tenant for the possession of land claimed under lease and refused to be delivered up;

(iii) in causes and matters involving the ownership, possession, occupation of or title to land (emphasis humbly mine);

(iv) to appoint guardians of infants and to make orders for the custody of infants:

(v) to grant in any action instituted in the Court, injunctions or orders to stay waste or alienation or for the detention and preservation of any property the subject matter of that action or to restrain breaches of contract or the commission of any tort;

(vi) in claims of relief by way of interpleader in respect of land or other property attached in execution of an order made by a Circuit Court;

(vii) in applications for the grant of probate or letters of administration in respect of the estate of a deceased person, and in causes and matters relating to succession to property of a deceased person, who had at the time of his death a fixed place of abode within the area of jurisdiction of the Circuit Court and the value of the estate or property in question does not exceed 100 million.

As previously indicated, this paper is restricted to land disputes: which said cases typically involve claims asserting title, possession, ownership, or occupancy rights.

Consequently, the jurisdictional issues examined herein do not encompass claims for monetary damages arising from land acquisitions. This is because, in certain specific claims provided for in Act 459^[6] and L.I 2429^[7]; the District and Circuit Courts are bound by and strictly adhere to their monetary jurisdictional limits of GHC 500,000.00 (Five Hundred Thousand Cedis) and GHC2,000,000.00 (Two Million Ghana Cedis) respectively.

However, this paper focuses exclusively on jurisdictional objections raised in Circuit Court cases concerning land ownership, possession, occupation, or title.

Regulation 2 of L.I. 2429

In the present context, the jurisdictional challenge hinges on the Applicant’s contention that the value of the land in dispute must necessarily be less than GHC2,000,000.00 (Two Million Ghana Cedis). This argument, typically advanced by counsel for the Applicant, is grounded in Section 42(1)(a) of Act 459, as amended by Regulation 2 of L.I 2429.

The said Regulation 2 of L.I 2429 reads; The Courts Act, 1993 (Act 459) referred to in these Regulations as the “principal enactment” is amended in subsection (1) of Section 42 by the substitution for

Subparagraph (i) of paragraph (a) of
In a personal action arising under a contract or a tort, or for the recovery of a liquidated sum of money, where the amount claimed does not exceed two million Ghana Cedis;” and
Subparagraph (vii) of paragraph (a), of

(vii) in an application for the grant of probate or letters of administration in respect of the estate of a deceased person, and in causes and matters relating to succession to property of a deceased person, who had, at the time of death a fixed place of abode within the area of jurisdiction of the Circuit Court and value of the estate or property in question does not exceed two million Ghana Cedis;”

Central to the Applicant’s argument is the erroneous assumption that the GHC2,000,000.00 (Two Million Ghana Cedis) monetary cap in Regulation 2 of L.I 2429 extends to land-related disputes. Consequently, they formally request the Circuit Court to decline jurisdiction.

It is posited that the root of this misconception lies in the sweeping application of the District Court’s jurisdictional limitations for land matters.

Section 47(e) of Act 459, as amended by Regulation 3(b) of L.I 2429, explicitly restricts the District Court’s jurisdiction in land disputes to cases involving land valued at less than GHC 500,000.00 (Five Hundred Thousand Cedis).

It is therefore respectfully suggested that many practitioners inadvertently apply this logic to the Circuit Court’s GHC2,000,000.00 (Two Million Ghana Cedis) cap which applies to the circumstances mentioned at Regulation 2 (a) and (b) of L.I 2429, thereby overlooking the true scope of Section 42(1)(a)(iii) of Act 459.

This oversight is both unfortunate and misleading.

APPRECIATION OF THE RELEVANT LAWS

This segment explores the core statutes that govern the Circuit Court’s jurisdiction in land disputes. Here, we will dissect the fundamental concept of jurisdiction and delve into a critical analysis of Section 42(1)(a)(iii) of Act 459 and Regulation 2 of L.I. 2429.

A court’s jurisdiction defines its legal authority to hear and adjudicate legal matters. It is a foundational concept that ensures the legitimacy of court decisions. The power to exercise jurisdiction stems exclusively from legislative enactments, not from the court itself.

Section 42(1)(a)(iii) of Act 459 establishes the Circuit Court’s civil jurisdiction in matters concerning land ownership, possession, occupation, or title. Notably, this provision is silent on any monetary limitations pertaining to the disputed land’s value.

Regulation 2 of L.I. 2429 amends specific sections of Act 459, but it is crucial to recognize that these amendments do not apply to Section 42(1)(a)(iii). In essence, Regulation 2 introduces monetary limitations for certain cases but does not affect the Circuit Court’s jurisdiction in land disputes as outlined in Section 42(1)(a)(iii).

The absence of a monetary cap in Section 42(1)(a)(iii) and the inapplicability of Regulation 2’s amendments to this provision both point towards a clear legislative intent: the Circuit Court possesses unlimited jurisdiction in adjudicating land-related disputes irrespective of the land’s value.

The Concept of Jurisdiction

It is axiomatic that a Court’s jurisdiction constitutes its authority to adjudicate disputes. Essentially, it is the court’s power to formally and lawfully entertain and determine matters presented for its decision^[8].

As a creature of statute, a Court’s jurisdiction is exclusively derived from legislative enactment^[9]. The question of jurisdiction is fundamental to every proceeding, so much so that, whether or not challenged by the parties, must be independently assessed by the Court to ensure the ultimate validity of its judgment^[10].

On that account, a comprehensive understanding of the Circuit Court’s jurisdiction in land disputes necessitates a meticulous examination of the relevant statutory provisions.

Analysis of Section 42(1)(a)(iii) of Act 459 and the Impact of Regulation 2 of L.I. 2429

Section 42(1)(a) of Act 459 and Regulation 2 of L.I 2429 have been stated herein supra.

A combined appreciation of these provisions is necessary, given that L.I 2429 is an amendment to specific Sections of Act 459.

Regulation 2 of L.I 2429 specifically amends Section 42(1)(a)(i) and (vii) of Act 459 which said section reads;

“The civil jurisdiction of a Circuit Court consists of the following;

(a) original jurisdiction in civil matters

(i) in personal actions arising under contract or tort or for the recovery of any liquidated sum, where the amount claimed is not more than ¢100 million; and

Regulation 2(a) and (b) of L.I 2429 as quoted herein supra introduce a fixed monetary jurisdictional limit of GHC2,000,000.00 (Two Million Ghana Cedis) for the Circuit Court in the specified cases. Paradoxically, this provision has engendered confusion regarding the court’s jurisdiction in land disputes.

It is imperative to clarify that Regulation 2 of L.I 2429 does not amend Section 42(1)(a)(iii) of Act 459; which is the specific statutory provision creating the civil jurisdiction of the Circuit Courts in matters involving the ownership, possession, occupation of, or title to land.

The amendments introduced by L.I 2429 are actually confined to Sections 42(1)(a)(i) and (vii) of Act 459.

Section 42(1)(a)(iii) of Act 459, governing land-related disputes, remains unaltered or unamended as at date.

Accordingly, Section 42(1)(a)(iii) of Act 459 remains the guiding provision for determining the Circuit Court’s jurisdiction in land disputes where ownership, possession, occupation rights and title to land form the claim presented for determination.

The said provision reads simply; “the civil jurisdiction of a Circuit Court consists of the following…..original jurisdiction in Civil matters in causes and matters involving the ownership, possession, occupation of or, title to land”^[11]

A meticulous analysis of Section 42(1)(a)(iii) of Act 459 unequivocally demonstrates the absence of any reference to the value of the disputed land as a jurisdictional prerequisite. The silence of the statute on this matter is conspicuous and thus, precludes any interpretation imposing a value cap.

The clear, natural and unambiguous meaning of Section 42(1)(a)(iii) of Act 459 must therefore be preferred in the instant situation^[12].

Given the omission of a monetary threshold in Section 42(1)(a)(iii) of Act 459, it is respectfully submitted that the Circuit Court’s jurisdiction in land disputes is expansive, unrestricted and at large.

Consequently, the Circuit Court’s jurisdiction in land disputes is plenary and without limitation.

Some learned colleagues have contended severally that L.I 2429, which amends specific Sections of Act 459, should be interpreted to impose monetary limitations on the subject matter of all cases. I, however, respectfully disagree with this argument. The fault here lies in overlooking the precise manner in which L.I 2429 amends identifiable provisions within Act 459.

Specifically, concerning the Circuit Court, Regulation 2(a) and (b) of L.I 2429 serve as the amending provisions, while Section 42(1)(a)(i) and (vii) of Act 459 represent the corresponding amended provisions. Therefore, the language of these statutory provisions cannot lend itself to any interpretation that would result in the imposition of a GHC2,000,000.00 (Two Million Ghana Cedis), jurisdictional limitation on the Circuit Courts in land disputes.

In the circumstances and with the utmost respect to my learned colleagues at the Bar, I submit that the arguments advocating for the existence of a monetary limitation; specifically GHC2,000,000.00 (Two Million Ghana Cedis), on the Circuit Court’s jurisdiction in cases related to ownership, possession, occupation, or title to land fail on two distinct grounds.

These are;

On the ground that Section 42(1)(a)(iii) of Act 459 does not mention any value of the disputed land, and

On the ground that Regulation 2(a) and (b) of L.I 2429 which amends only Section 42(1)(a)(i) and (vii) of Act 459 makes no mention of a GHC2,000,000.00 (Two Million Ghana Cedis) monetary limitation or value cap with respect to Section 42(1)(a)(iii) of Act 459.

Judicial Precedents

The Court of Appeal, no doubt has been approached by aggrieved parties on this particular issue.^[13]

In the case of the Republic Vs. The Registrar, Circuit Court, Agona Swedru; Ex Parte; Mohammed Mustapha; Paul Gayina & 2 Ors. (Interested Parties).^[14]

The Court opined thus, “the law has not fixed any ceiling for the Circuit Court in causes or matters involving the Ownership, Possession, Occupation of, or Title to Land, and the High Court was right when it refused to quash the decision of the Circuit Court on that ground.”

CONCLUSION

The True Position of the Law

It is perplexing that the clear provisions of Section 42(1)(a)(iii) of Act 459 and Regulation 2(a) and (b) of L.I 2429 have been the subject of persistent misinterpretation and misapplication within our courts. This phenomenon has been observed by Circuit Courts and Appellate Courts alike.

It is imperative that the practice of challenging the Circuit Court’s jurisdiction in land disputes solely on the basis of the value of the land exceeding GHC2,000,000.00 (Two Million Ghana Cedis) be discontinued.

Such challenges engender significant delays, unnecessary costs, and protracted litigation, thereby undermining the expeditious dispensation of justice.

Given the unambiguous state of the law, Circuit Courts should steadfastly reject jurisdictional objections founded solely on this ground.

As legal practitioners therefore, let us cement the true position of the law in this matter forthwith, thus;

In causes and matters involving the Ownership, Possession, Occupation of, or Title to Land, the Circuit Court has unlimited jurisdiction with regards to whatever the value of the land in dispute may be. The monetary limitations placed on certain causes or matters by L.I 2429 at Rule 2(a) and (b) have no bearing whatsoever on causes or matters involving the Ownership, Possession, Occupation of, or Title to the Land as far as the Circuit Court is concerned. The Circuit Court’s jurisdiction in this regard is at large.

Recommendations

By addressing and conclusively dispelling the common misconception of a GHC2,000,000.00 (Two Million Ghana Cedis) valuation cap of the Circuit Court’s jurisdiction in land disputes, litigants and legal practitioners can contribute to a more just and efficient land dispute resolution regime in Ghana by:

Preventing unnecessary litigation and delays: Challenges based on incorrect jurisdictional assumptions can be avoided.
Ensuring fair access to justice: Litigants in disputes whose land value exceed the perceived cap can now proceed to the Circuit Court.
Optimizing judicial resources: By correctly channeling cases to the appropriate courts, judicial efficiency is enhanced.
Providing clear legal guidance: This paper offers a comprehensive understanding of the relevant laws and their interpretation which is beneficial to all stakeholders.

My respectful submission therefore is that, learned colleagues at the bar forthwith refrain from perpetuating the erroneous interpretation and application of Section 42(1)(a)(iii) of Act 459 in light of Regulation 2 of L.I 2429 in land disputes.

If a modification of the Circuit Court’s jurisdiction in land matters is deemed necessary on policy grounds, the appropriate legislative process should be triggered and pursued to amend Section 42(1)(a)(iii) of Act 459 accordingly.

Until such an amendment is enacted, it is hoped that this paper will effectively and irrefutably dispel the prevailing misconceptions surrounding the Circuit Court’s jurisdiction in land disputes in Ghana.

By: Her Honour Judge Sedinam Awo Kwadam (Mrs.)

Copyright

[1] The Courts Act, 1993 (Act 459 as amended), the Civil Jurisdiction of the Circuit Courts

[2] Courts Regulations, 2020 (L.I. 2429), an amendment to Sections 42 and 47 of At 459 pursuant to the power conferred on the Attorney-General by Sections 42(4) and 47(4) of Act 459

[3] Taking inspiration from the principles espoused in Order 1 Rule 1 (2) of High Court (Civil Procedures) Rules, 2004 (C.I. 47 as amended).

[4] Stephens v. Apoh (2010) 27 MLRG 12 CA, Frabina Ltd. v. Shell Gh. Ltd (2011) 1 SCGLR 429, Unilever Gh. Ltd. v. The Commissioner Gen., GRA (CM/TAX/0450/2021, Delivered on 20th July, 2023)

[5] Bimpong Buta v. G.L.C [2003-2004]2 SCGLR 1200

[6] Sections 42(1)(a)(i) & (vii) and 47(1)(a), (e) & (g)of Act 459

[7] Regulations 2(a) & (b) and 3(a), (b) & (c) of L.I 2429

[8] Yeboah v. Mensah [1997-1998] 2 GLR 245 SC

[9] Edusei v AG & Another [1996-1997] SCGLR 1

[10] Bimpong Buta v. GLC (supra), Frimpong & Anor. v. ROME [2013] 58 GMJ 131 CA, Anthony Sakyi v. Ga South Municipal Assembly [2022] 178 GMJ 216 CA

[11] Section 42(1)(a)(iii) of Act 459

[12] Tuffour v. Attorney-General [1978] GLR 637

[13] Richard Kwame Banni Vs. Isaac Acquaye Pappo and Calvary Baptist Church [delivered in 2021]

[14] [2012] DLCA8667